Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
dave_SLC said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
dave_SLC said:Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Dr.GutHealth said:There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.
Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.